The oil-burner cranks out 190 hp and a stump-pulling 369 lb-ft of torque—96 more lb-ft than the gasoline V-6, which has been revised to make 302 hp and 273 lb-ft, gains of 34 hp and 15 lb-ft, respectively, for 2013. Both engines are mated to a seven-speed automatic transmission with a stop/start Eco mode.During our GLK250 Bluetec drive we noticed that the turbodiesel isn't quite as quick as the 3.5-liter, but can hold its own on a winding road. The diesel engine is refined enough for a luxury automaker but won’t be mistaken for a gas engine. Mercedes hasn’t released official EPA test numbers for the 2013 model year, but the turbodiesel SUV should return much better fuel economy than the regular V-6 model.

If you were in the market for a luxury SUV, would you consider the 302-hp 3.5-liter gasoline engine or trade 112 ponies for 96 lb-ft more torque from an efficient four-cylinder turbodiesel? Give us your pick — the Mercedes-Benz GLK350 or GLK250 Bluetec — in the comments below!

I'm getting the GLK250 as soon as it hits the market here in the states!! With a growing family the Audi A3 TDI is getting to small for all of us so that's becoming my commuter and the Glk will be the family car. Here in Cali Diesel is now cheaper than premium so it's a double no brainer for us..

I'm looking for a sportier 6-8 passenger used vehicle for the family thats a little more exciting than a minivan, so far I'm thinking, Ford Flex which I believe has around 270 hp, 2008 Cadillac (V6 has 255 hp, V8 has over 300), and Volvo XC90. Any suggestions?

It snows a lot around here, in Maryland. Some winters we get 20" a night! I need something that can easily go through it and get me to work. I also have a pair of jetskis that I need to tow. I don't need a third row seat with no kids, but I do have young nieces and nephews that I might have to drive around when they visit. But yes, I would just have the third row seat
removed and stored for 90% of the time, that's also why the Range Rover is an option.
It's also a because I can afford to kind of thing as well. I currently have a '98 Expedition for my duties. I think I deserve an upgrade. :mrgreen:

True earlier generations of diesels were slow, and some, especially American diesels. But with earlier generation diesels you also have the Mercedes million mile motor. Diesels, like gas engines of the 70s 80s and 90s were not as reliable and needed more maintenance than they do now, jusy different kinds of maintenance, but not really anything as extreme as $2000+labor to swap out batteries in a hybrid. Unlike gas or hybrid engines diesels are not even broken in til they have 100k on the odometer, in addition to better fuel economy with age as evidenced by a v10 diesel toureg I inherited that gets 25mpg in town and 30 to 33 highway depending on if the highway is extra hilly or not.

Hmm gasoline engine that requires premium, versus a diesel that will probably get similar mileage to the Lexus rx hybrid, hmm. Diesel is 10cents more than premium here, in the DC suburbs where I spend 2 to 3 days a week I can get diesel fot anywhere from 10 cents less than regular to 10 cents more than premium in Maryland, it seems like a no brainer.

Here in europe we have adopted diesel in more than 70% of our cars, but often because taxes were in favor of such choice. But you US friends, be careful before switching to diesel and I4 or both, because you are going to loose the refined sound and the power of gasoline engine we enjoy to experiment every time we come here in US. Maintenance for diesel is also more expensive. For the Merc, the better choice will be probably to adopt V6 dieselas evocated by Robert (350 CDI) that's combined less thirsty attitude, higher torque and smooh and power. May be in the future the deactivation of half cylinder may be helpful to align fuel consumption of V6 to I4

You yourself admit legislative meddling creates an artificial wall against diesels. In Europe, a continent of 450 million people and numerous pigheaded EPA like agencies it's a perfectly acceptable fuel. So, the government's motives are questionable at best. As for diesels being more expensive so they are also in Europe yet 40-50% of cars are diesel. Admittedly, diesels made a weak entry to the States. But how could people experience the new diesels when the government was continously blocking their entry to the market.

I would argue that the main contributing factor towards diesel popularity in North America, have been historically due to cheap fuel prices as well as the mentality of "there's no replacement for displacement".
Also, the first generation diesels were unreliable because manufactures thought that they could save money and create a diesel engine by using cylinder blocks from gas engines. Not a good choice, as we know diesel engines need more robust parts.

The costs involved with complying with EPA regulations have far more to do with not only the high cost of diesels in the U.S. but the fact that many diesels available in Europe are not available here than any alleged oil company collusion (it doesn't make economic sense to pay the high cost of certifying a car or truck to sell here when it can be outlawed in an instant, as has happened before, with the stroke of an EPA bureaucrat's pen). Not to mention, our diesel market has traditionally been soft, thanks to a disastrous first generation of slow and unreliable diesels.

Diesel. But the GLK also has a 3 liter diesel in Europe. So why not bring both to the States. The US is ideal for diesel use. Annual mileage is usually high and with diesels the more you drive the more economical they are. Now, if we could only get Washington to get off the oil industry's payroll and stop making diesels so artificially expensive.

Since the price of Diesel is frequently higher than gasoline in my area (currently about $.50 a gallon higher), it comes down to the price difference between the two. My guess is the oil burner would cost more, and since I don't need to pull stumps (especially with Mercedes), I'd probably pick the 3.5.

G63 AMG for AutoMax!!!
Stump pulling 369 lb-ft of torque!?! LMAO
The Chevy has nearly 800 lb-ft of torque and can hardly get AutoMax sideways on an off-ramp, please!!!
Now if it was 2,000 lb-ft of torque, it might be stump pulling then, maybe. LOL
But last time AutoMax checked, you use a bulldozer for stump pulling.
Okay, so this is easy, AutoMax would take neither.
For a woman, AutoMax would take the gas over the diesel so they don't end up filling it with gas. LOL
Watch out for trolls Team AutoMax, there is a dude, likely Goob, pretending to be AutoMax.
Goob can't cut it on his own merits so he piggybacks off of AutoMax like a soiled man. LMAO
AUTOMAX!!! :mrgreen: